Since the 1980s, a growing body of evidence has suggested that industrialization is affecting Earth’s climate. As a result, in 1997 the industrialized nations of the world agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol has come under attack from both sides—many environmentalists feel that it does not really address the threat of global warming, while many in industry feel it is an unnecessary burden. Although the United States signed the agreement, in 2001 President George W. Bush announced that the United States would abandon its commitment to the protocol as it was not in the nation’s best economic interests. Global warming is a particularly difficult issue because it demands a worldwide response. Many developing nations are understandably angered that a problem that seems to have been created by the rich, developed nations will have the most impact on the Third World. A global consensus remains far off.
PROS
Over the past 100 years, humankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels to provide energy. This has released large volumes of gases into the atmo- sphere, particularly CO2. At the same time, the world’s remaining large forests, which help absorb CO2, are being rapidly felled. Overall, the levels of carbon diox- ide in the atmosphere have increased by 30% during
CONS
Scientists have not yet proved conclusively that human- kind is causing global warming. Although average tem- peratures rose during the twentieth century, tempera- tures actually dropped slightly between the 1930s and the 1970s. This was not associated with a reduction in fossil fuel consumption; emissions actually increased over this period. If the “greenhouse gases” are responsible for
the last century. When in the atmosphere, CO2 and other gases are thought to cause a “greenhouse effect”: They allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat emitted by the Earth, trapping it and leading to global warming. Weather records seem to support this theory. Average temperatures have increased by 0.6°C since the nineteenth century; the four hottest years since accu- rate records have been kept have all been in the 1990s. Unusual weather patterns such as floods and droughts have also been on the increase, with the uncharacter- istically strong El Niño events of recent years causing widespread disruption. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body set up to study possible global warming, has concluded that “. . . the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discern- ible human influence on global climate.”
Computer models predict that continued global warm- ing could have catastrophic effects. Changes in temper- ature could devastate wildlife when local vegetation dies off. Patterns of disease could change. Already isolated cases of malaria have been reported far north of tradi- tional danger zones as warmer weather allows the mos- quitoes that carry the disease to spread. Most important, a portion of the polar ice caps might melt and lead to a rise in sea level, which has already increased by between 10 and 25 cm in the last 100 years. Giant cracks have been found in the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica, which suggest that it is breaking apart; a section 48 miles wide and 22 miles long drifted free and melted as early as 1994. If, as experts believe, temperatures rise a further 3°C over the next century, low-lying areas and even entire countries, such as Bangladesh, could disappear under the waves.
Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to increase standards of living without burning fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy, such as wind or solar power, are ripe for development, but have yet to see the levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging the development of electric cars or promot- ing better insulation of houses could make a substantial difference in CO2 levels in the long run.
Global warming is a worldwide catastrophe waiting to happen. The emission of greenhouse gases affects every- one. It is, therefore, vital that the entire world respond
global warming, how do you account for this? Accurate records simply do not cover a long enough period to be useful. The Earth’s average temperature varies naturally through time, and we have few good explanations of the Ice Ages. Indeed, there was a “mini–Ice Age” around 400 years ago, during which the River Thames in England repeatedly froze over in winter. This was followed by an intense but natural period of “global warming.” We do not have enough information to say that current trends are not simply a natural variation.
Again, our computer models for predicting climate change are far from reliable. Weather is a hugely com- plex system that we are only beginning to understand. It is affected by many factors, including solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, and other cycles that we are gradually discovering. Very slight changes in the computer model result in immense differences in predic- tions. Some scientists, for example, have suggested that global warming could actually cause a drop in sea level as rainfall patterns and ocean currents shift. Indeed, refine- ments in the models used by the IPCC have caused it to modify its predictions. In 1990, the IPCC estimated that by 2100 the average temperature would rise by 3°C and the sea would rise by about 65cm; in 1995, it revised its estimates to 2°C and 50 cm. The more research that takes place, the less catastrophic global warming seems to be. The media always report the predictions of doom most widely.
Of course greater energy efficiency is important. How- ever, most alternative fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power cre- ates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydroelectric power projects, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, lead to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an ide- alistic view of renewable energy that is far from the less romantic reality.
The evidence for global warming is not strong enough to merit this kind of response. The changes over the past century may certainly have been purely natural. Environ-
120|The Debatabase Book
Sample Motions:
This House believes that the Kyoto Protocol didn’t go far enough. This House calls for urgent action on global warming.
This House fears a global greenhouse.
This House believes that global warming demands global action.
Web Links:
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. <http://www.ipcc.ch> Offers reports assessing scientific, technical, and socioeco- nomic information related to human-induced climate change.
• Kyoto Protocol. <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/> Full text of the Kyoto Protocol. • National Center for Policy Analysis. <http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/gw.html> Site presenting arguments on both sides of the
debate.
• World Meteorological Organization. <http://www.wmo.ch> UN organization provides information on meteorological issues as well as a statement on the status of the global climate.
Further Reading:
Flannery, Tim. The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006.
Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Rodale, 2006.
Klobert, Elizabeth. Field Notes from a Catastrophe. Bloomsbury USA, 2006.
Lovelock, James. The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity. Basic Books, 2006.
now. The targets set by the Kyoto Protocol will barely scratch the surface of the problem. The developed world agreed to only minimal reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, and no agreement was reached involving the developing world, which is producing a greater percent- age of greenhouse gas emissions every year. Gases like CO2 remain in the atmosphere for centuries. If we wait until we can see the results of global warming, it may be too late. The damage will have been done. We must act now, and we must act globally. Developed countries must do all they can to reduce their use of fossil fuels. They must assist developing nations to do the same, by shar- ing technology or perhaps through “emissions trading,” allowing poorer countries to sell their quota of pollution in return for hard cash. International pressure must be exerted against those countries that do not cooperate, even if this slows economic growth. The poorest regions of the world would suffer most from more droughts and floods and rising sea levels. However difficult it may be in the short term, such actions now may save millions of lives in the future.
mentalists in the developed world can afford the luxury of demanding government action because reducing pol- lution will have a minimal impact on their technology- based economies. Those in the developing world are not so lucky. Industrialization is a key part of building suc- cessful economies and bringing prosperity to the world’s poorest people; heavy industry is often the only area in which developing nations can compete. Global action on greenhouse gas emissions would sustain the inequali- ties of the status quo. The developing world would have to depend on multinational corporations to provide the technology needed to keep pollution levels low, or else they would have to stop expanding their economies. Having apparently caused the problem through the industrialization that made them powerful, developed countries would be pulling the ladder up behind them, depriving other countries of the chance to grow. This is simply unacceptable. In the modern world, one of our first priorities must be to help the poorest people achieve the prosperity they need to support themselves. The cur- rent evidence for global warming does not begin to merit endangering this goal.